So a few things I've been thinking about.I've read up on the history of a couple successful symbols - the radiation symbol and the biohazard symbol.The radiation symbol had a concept behind it (an atom radiating energy) but the design behind the biohazard symbol was intended to be "...memorable but meaningless, so [they] could educate people as to what it means."While I don't think a Save symbol should be meaningless, I think keeping it highly abstract makes a lot of sense.I also had some really interesting conversations about the actual save process with @protodave.Even focusing on things like binary or the magnetic write process are problematic with technologies like quantum computing and holographic data storage.

I'm in favor of at least looking at the semantics again.Save doesn't mean what it used to!It's not just "write the contents of a volatile memory space to a non-volatile medium" anymore.It would also be good to look at the emotional context of the action, to evoke that in the design.(That biohazard icon looks like something unfriendly to me.) We save things in order to recover them in the future.We want to feel that they are kept safe, secure.The icon should have that sort of feel to it.

I posted this on Twitter because I felt like it mixes where we currently are and where we're headed.In a few years we're probably not going to be saving things in the classic sense.No more my-awesome-file-001.txt, my-awesome-file-final.txt, my-awesome-file-final-final.txt...instead it's going to be one continuos thread.I like that this image has both the old way of doing things (a bookmark) and the new way with the network graph.Clearly straddling the old and new world.f.cloud.github.com

@Ryan Yeah, I think that's a really good point.@JJG Agreed - for one reason or another, I keep sketching box-like shapes with something in it.Not sure if that's right, but I keep wanting to show a "thing" being contained.@Dave Do you think they need to be entirely different symbols or variations of a base symbol?@Rob Hmm...Would a 'commit' be too specific for the concept of saving?I don't know, I'm a little conflicted.

Right now 'saving' often means that you're either writing a copy to a new location or you're overwriting one that already exists.While the term 'commit' is specific to VCS what I'm trying to get at is constancy.Going forward most of the things we work on are going to have this timeline built in.Even dropbox does it:dropbox.com

So what you're 'saving' is no longer a physical copy, it's a moment in time.Regardless if it's local or in the cloud or whatever.Another way to think of it is progress.With every save you're closer to some destination, whatever that may be.Just trying to see if I can get it more toward the abstract biohazard and less toward any physical object :)

I definitely think save == "commit".It applies to settings, changes made, versions of documents, and so on; and is neutral towards systems that automatically save temporary versions and those that don't.

It lends itself well to timeline/version history paradigms by signifying the concept of adding a new version, but works equally well for overriding a previous version of a thing.The standard action flow would be:

So refreshing to see comments from smart folks!I actually think there are many "action" icons that need rethinking but save is definitely one of the most pressing ones.As for save = commit, first thing that came to mind is a stamp:edw.me

Quick tangent - I've had some really interesting conversations about whether the notion of saving is becoming outdated.I think it's a valid opinion, although I disagree and would like to hear what other folks thought about the subject.From my view, the core concept of saving (by which I mean writing data to some sort of storage) isn't going to go away any time soon.So whether we are syncing to the cloud or saving a document, that core abstract concept of saving will still be there.

Now I'm unsure if an abstract save symbol could or should encompass these things, but I think think something as important as writing data to storage should have a decent symbol.

@Christian Yeah, that's going to be tough because designing a symbol as an indexical sign puts a timestamp on its relevancy, don't you think?

@Matt & Rob Isn't committing a file a subset of saving?It's just a specific way to write data to disk, right?@Edward Thanks!My sketches and others (see attached image by Maximilian Larsson: dribbble.com) have been looking similar to your sketches.There's something there...

@pjThat's cool!Why the branched arrow?Is that the simplest possible representation?Is it necessary?Is it accurate?(If it's branched it means it's merging two things into one)Also, it can lool like a bunny depending on how you look at it.:-D

I agree, the branch at the top makes it seem like two things are being merged together.The first one in Edward's "abstract set" above was the first thing I thought of when I joined this thread: the down arrow representing some sort of user action, and the circle around it representing the circle of safety and security surrounding the object of the action.Then I wondered about the down arrow.What is it about "down" that seems to connote storage?Any other arrow seems weird to me.Additionally, this icon is very, very similar to a wide range of "download" icons used in recent years, as an image search confirms.I do like the idea embodied in PJ's second point above, the creation of a static object.That seems highly relevant here.

I keep thinking about time in all of this.I think the most basic symbol for a point in time is just a dot so that's what I started with.Then I figured you can easily toggle the dot to indicate that something is saved or unsaved.You can also play with the dot and shrink it or fade it out to indicate how long ago something was saved.It's not immediately recognizable but that's ok, I'm not constraining my thinking in that way just yet :)

@Edward - I don't know about the branched line - I don't think that's necessary or accurate either.@Jesse - I agree that the arrow is going to start communicating something potentially inaccurate.It's less about direction and more about capturing/creating/snapshotting.@Rob - I like it!They kind of remind of Harvey Balls (en.wikipedia.org).I have been thinking of different shapes to use other than a circle.I have a few ideas in my head that I'll try to put together.

I really love where this discussion is going.@SomeRandomDude added me, so I guess I'll have to give my two cents.:-)

In my head "Save" was a verb to apply a state, "Saved" and its been that way for many years.When we make a change to data, its former state becomes incomplete, as we "Save" we actually overwrite a previous version, or state.Looking at Git, games, and other applications, the "Saved" state no longer applies since we sometimes have no control of the "saved" state.

My idea for this issue is to symbolize the state of the data that is being written relative to the data that was written in the past.d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net

Building...I've been thinking about how to convey the idea of permanence.I keep coming back to the infinity symbol.The "foreverness" + international read seems useful here.Thinking about an arrow getting into an infinity symbol.

@Jesse, I think of it as both.When an application no longer waits for the user to click a button and starts saving their data, its no longer a passive UI element.We need to clearly show that this interaction between your data and the application is happening, while also being able to give the user freedom to push an update of some sort.

I believe focusing on an affordance for user action will lead easily to deriving status indication (where the inverse is less probable).I'd also suggest that constraints should include one-color, static, and not supported by a text string.

@Christian, I really believe that a symbol like this could do both.It simplifies the relationship between what the user is doing to the data, and whether or not its being updated.For an update state/save state icon, I think the one on the right works better.

I've added another animation to illustrate the change.I'm hoping that this very simple symbol is intuitive enough to learn what it is.d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net

@Aaron Absolutely agree, I wasn't meaning to imply it shouldn't be able to do both, but rather where to focus, to start.I think where you're headed conceptually has a lot going for it – the execution for me is communicating more about completion and because it is rather abstract presents challenges with intuitiveness.I'm also not sure if motion, even subtle, is the right thing to do (I imagine sets of icons like a row of flashing slot machines).

I had a great discussion with Chris Messina (branch.com) about if the Save icon is even necessary.I think that's an worthwhile subject to discuss.I also need to catch up on this conversation.I'll be doing that tonight.

One thing that came out of the conversation was that in the future, *everything* will be saved behind the scenes, resembling a stream or timeline. So what we now call saving will be more about explicitly calling out a specific point in time.This got me thinking of representing the "point" being captured on a timeline.

The attached symbols are rough, but I wanted to just put them out there.Hollow indicates modified/unsaved, solid indicates implicitly saved and a specifically captured point would be "encapsulated" on the timeline.It needs work and my thinking is still elastic on this, but I thought better to throw it out earlier than later.cl.ly

I believe it is easy to say *everything* will be saved in the future.Personally I think that sentiment lacks nuance.But even if true, when is that future?I'd say it is more years out than it has been common to have floppy disk save buttons in software, which means many times over the need on screen.

@Jesse, I agree with Christian and Aaron that we should focus on user action with the aim that the icon can also serve to communicate state.

@Christian, get your mind out of the gutter.;) I like the idea of permanence, I wonder if we can use the infinity symbol as the foundation for a more abstracted form.I'm still trying to come up with some ideas around that direction.@Aaron, I really like your second direction (nice demo as well).My initial feedback is that there should be greater differentiation between the saved and unsaved states.Still, I dig it!

I wanted to post a few more forms around the concept of encapsulation/capturing.All the the forms in direction 1 are focused just on the subject of encapsulation while the forms in direction 2 are about capturing a point in time.I thought the idea of hexagon was interesting because it resembles an box in isometric view.I wanted to show an object being safely contained.I also tried simple brackets around that idea.

I personally like the concept of "boxing" an object.I'm thinking there could be some interesting intersections between Aaron's direction and the encapsulation direction.Perhaps a permeable box signifying "unsaved" and a solid box signifying "saved".cl.ly

@Edward, I think the conversation is pretty high-level at this point.I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing - as long as the conversation eventually becomes more concrete.Still, I see where you're coming from.Any new thoughts on the subject?

No new thoughts - basically if the document is saved the icon should be greyed out, if it's not saved then it's enabled.I think the icon should be at least vaguely understandable, even if it gets labeled.Dots seem too cryptic to me.:-(

Yeah, I can see that.Here's the challenge - how does one accurately symbolize data?I think we're all defaulting to a dot since it's a pretty fundamental shape.I am not personally wedded to the circle, I just couldn't think of a simple shape that would create greater clarity.I would really like to avoid the use of arrows, at least explicitly.I don't think saving insinuates direction.

To me saving is like "keeping", like "moving to my drawer, my file cabinet", and that has directionality.It's going from RAM to hard drive.Down is the direction for putting it somewhere because of gravity, which pulls it down and keeps stuff in its place.(duh, I know, but it's the logic) :-P

Hmm...I'm going to have to just sit and think about that for a while.I'm having a hard time articulating *why* an arrow still doesn't seem appropriate.I want to make sure my thinking is on solid ground before I go any further.

Hey Guys, sorry for the delay, I'm in a moving transition.@PJ that's exactly where I'm coming from.I can't help but think of data as either partial or whole.I'm continuing to play with different and intuitive shapes to symbolize data.The most intuitive shape I can think of is the empty circle.I've actually taken this question to the streets and asked both strangers and friends about data then presented the circle to them.Funny thing is that they keep saying, "Oh yeah, the save Icon!The Floppy Disk thing!"and they eventually come around to say, yeah, I think this works.

This is anecdotal, but a few years ago I was teaching college freshmen about web servers and FTP.These kids lived and breathed Facebook, and yet they had no mental model for local data (on their PC) versus remote data (on a web server).They.Just.Didn't.Get.It.And I don't fault them.They've never known a computing device that isn't connected to the internet all the time.As we're designing a save icon for the future, we need to consider the mental model people in the future will have with "data" that need to be saved.The icon should be abstract, but also intuitive."Intuitive" is a dreadful word, but to go all Lakoff and Johnson, it means that the icon should leverage embodied metaphor to communicate meaning.

Signifying progression with a left/right model is weakly embodied, as "right means forward" is a culturally Western meaning derived from left-to-right reading.Up can mean "away from me" while down can mean "towards me".On the concept of save:

"Saving" is inseparable from retrieving.If in the future everything is going to be saved at all times, a means to quickly browse, evaluate and retrieve states (both auto-saves as well as manual-saves) will be essential.Tagging commits and the like is a powerful starting point, but if we're still using the GPU to animate galaxies in the background as people browse a version-controlled view of their file system, we're doing it wrong.

I participate in a lot of user testing at my work and it's always surprising how little the average person knows about technology.A magnifying glass on a toolbar can be read as both search and zoom.To us the context alone is enough to make us not even consider a magnifying glass to mean zoom when it's on a toolbar.If the save icon is to be used in some modern flat design iPhone app targeted at techies like ourselves, we can go crazy with circles and all sorts of abstract glyphs.But if we're to cater for the 60 year old person in a farm in Alabama, we need to think more carefully and keep it simple and direct.It could even be as simple as a check-mark, which would match many people's mental model of confirmation.

I'm certain that this is a minority opinion, but I personally think focusing on the lowest-common-denominator is going to lead to a less-than-optimal final design.

I think there's a fine line to balance here.If we only focus on 60 year old farmers in Alabama, we'd end up going back to the floppy disk.If we only focus on 25 year old technologists, we'd probably have circles and abstract glyphs.Somewhere in between those extremes makes sense to me.I'm still not opposed to *some* learning associated with a new icon.I think the more important goal is to make a better icon that's *worth* learning.

I think that with any new icon or symbol, there's always going to be a learning curve.

I think the most important goal, alongside with what @PJ mentioned: "the more important goal is to make a better icon that's *worth* learning."is to design a symbol that evokes a simple meaning.I keep thinking about the idea of data as our simplest and strongest cornerstone.This way, we can create a ubiquitous icon that can be adopted by different cultures.I think of the Power Icon and how it became it a known visual to describe turning an electronic device on or off and also getting it into a "standby" mode.cdn2.iconfinder.com

@Edward, your example of the magnifying glass exposes one of the downsides to using metaphors in iconography.It inevitably ends with mixed metaphors and/or meaningless metaphors.@Aaron, I like your reference of the power symbol.There's an interesting history behind that symbol (read: en.wikipedia.org).The symbol is abstract at first glance, but there's a meaningful concept at its foundation - something which justifies its existence.That seems to be a common thread among successful abstracted symbols.

@PJ, Does the power symbol successfully achieve its stated goals, though?According to the article the symbol is supposed to abstractly represent a number of states depending on its configuration:

1. single line for on2. circle for off3. circle with line to represent a switch that toggles between those states4. broken circle with line to represent sleep/low power mode

But really, the only symbol that is universally recognizable as the "power" symbol is the broken circle that Aaron posted above.Any subtle symbology about toggles or state is lost on the layperson.I spent years building PCs and looking at power supplies and I still couldn't tell you if a line means on, or if a circle means on.And I freaking just looked it up!

@Dane & @PJ: Hmm...After reading this, it makes me somewhat hesitant to stick with a "circle" symbol, although as a foundation for our purposes.However, I can't help but justify the simplicity of the idea of a circle being broken means, "something changed."I was talking to a friend who isn't technologically inclined, he remarked that it was as though someone took a piece of a pie, or that a ring had broken.He immediately understood that a broken circle means "something changed" then he proceeded to think that he might need to save it.Right now I feel like Norville in The Hudsucker Proxy: "You know, for kids!"

@PJ, Heh, or a light switch.Confusion from inappropriate use is kind of the point, though.The "broken circle with a line" is the most visually distinct symbol in the set, and so it was the one that got appropriated as the universal power symbol… for on, for off, for toggle, for everything power-related (and don't get me started on the Tumblr et al trend of using the symbol for "log out").@Aaron, I really like the circle (or n-gon) as it suggests a stable and complete state when solid, an incomplete or unstable state when broken.Maybe I've been huffing too much Dan Saffer, but I'm having a hard time separating the meaning of the "save" icon from the microinteractions around the acts (either passive or active) of saving and retrieving.

Quickly dashed off.Solid circle for "saved and synced" and broken circle for "not saved".Also thinking about communicating status spatially (up is away from you, down is toward you).Open questions around what "saved but not synced" looks like, or how you would browse previous versions, both those you manually saved, and those the system automatically saved for you.My assumption is that the future is some sort of Dropbox/Git thing, where remote and local (assuming the distinction continues to exist) are always exact copies one another, with robust versioning.I like Rob's shrinking inner circle thingy to communicate time/distance/changes since last save.

@PJ Onori A worthy desire, not always possible.As a designer it would make my life a lot easier if I never had to consider farmers in Alabama - and depending on the app I'm working on, I really don't.But for something universal I think it's worth considering a wider and international audience.Also, is the point of this exercise to have big companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon adopt this icon?If so, they are unlikely to do so if it doesn't test well with a wide audience.If user testing shows confusion with the new symbol, they'll just drop it.If they think that it'll cause confusion they won't even user test it.

Interesting conversation.One important thing to note is with the increase of repetition so increases the recognition.So @Edward I think you are onto something about adoption and "testing" well.Unfortunately, when using abstract representation of a concept, initial comprehension will always be low until the users begin to see the symbols used again and again.We have a chicken and the egg problem.

Save is really going away.Apple uses similar concepts for their save icons.It's becoming more of a how do you reference this file?It shouldn't be complicated.You can use dotted line to represent unsaved, but again you really don't need to represent it anymore.I thought about it a bit more, and a simple document icon.It doesn't matter the type it's still a Document : f.cl.ly

@Bradlyn having a distinct filetype symbol associated with an arrow can be confusing.They immediately have an associated meaning to them.Having to create a different icon with an associated symbol doesn't simplify things for a user since they would have to learn what each symbol means.I think that we have to gain a better grasp of what's changing.Data is no longer passive as more and more applications change the state of our data, they save, load, and can even resolve data for us.Having one symbol that can represent those different states of data would be the most ideal solution.I don't think that this conversation is really about saving, rather we might ask ourselves: "how do we represent data in its current state?"

The interesting thing about the floppy disk icon is that it isn't an abstract representation of the data object itself, but an anachronistic representation of the act of saving itself.It sidesteps the issues of, say, a document icon being too specific (and not an appropriate symbol for, say, saving an edited video), or a circle icon being too generic (and not recognizable as representing a data object), by not attempting to represent the object at all.The floppy disk icon is brilliant in its idiocy.

In regards to representing local/remote synchronization status, I almost see tumblers inside a lock, or three concentric circles.The outermost circle is the last-saved remote (master) version.The middle ring is the last-saved local version.The inner-most circle is the current (potentially unsaved) local version.When all three versions are in sync, their shapes are all aligned.If remote and local last-saves are in sync, but the currently open version is edited and unsaved, then the innermost shape is offset from the outer two.If the currently open version is saved locally but not synced to remote yet, then the inner two circles are aligned.

"The floppy disk icon is brilliant in its idiocy."It made sense for its time because *very* early on, no one even knew what Save meant in relation to computing.Being literal at this point in time made sense.The concentric circles are interesting, but it seems pretty specific to how saving is done at this very moment.In a way, it reminds me of a more conceptual version of the floppy icon.

On the subject of circles, I think circles in general are problematic since there are so many other meaning associated with the shape (Harvey Balls, Power Off, Number Zero, etc.) I think there needs to be some kind of unique shape/geometry to differentiate it.

I still think the concept of encapsulating or "boxing" data makes the most sense, IMHO.

On the subject of creating an purely intuitive Save icon, I think *any* replacement would require education.Some of that education would occur implicitly by simply placing the icon next to the word "Save".That doesn't mean that clarity shouldn't be a goal, but I also think strongly basing a design challenge like this on testing will not render a good result.

The idea here is that the "saved" icon looks at first glance like a 5.25" floppy disk.As the user makes changes that are not saved, the "branch" on the right slides out, and the central section of the circle falls away, leaving an empty container.The central section can then be used with modifiers, as in the final graphic.For instance, it might be used in a web applicaiton to show that the connection is no longer there and changes can't be synced back to the server.The border can also be seen as the frame of a viewport, and the inner elements as a portion of a node tree.So - while fairly recognizable as a familiar shape, over time this would introduce the user to an action more flexible than "save".

I really like PJ's point about saving as an automatic background activity, viewed as a timeline.My favorite programs don't require to actively save the document - they passively save the document as you edit, and allow access to a file history.

I think a nice system could include:- an activity indicator if the file's being saved, and- a checkmark if the file's saved.- If you tap or click on the checkmark, you'd see the file's save history.clrk.it

It seems any new save icon needs to be comprehensible by novices and experts, applicable in many situations, and, ideally, functional both as action-affordance and indicator.In psychological terms, I suspect saving is most often about stability, about staving off the anxiety of "losable" changes, whether that loss might happen through hardware or software failure, user error, or network disruption.(And if it isn't about that, the user's first experience of data loss will likely make it so.)

I propose the icons below, which describe the action by appealing to our intuitive grasp of physics and our tendency to desire stability (at least in all the domains in which the act currently known as "saving" applies).d.pr

I'd like to take one step back and ask whether the Save symbol needs rethinking at all.You've all come up with interesting solutions, but in general, I think they're all problematic in that you're using abstract imagery to convey an abstract concept.What is the real problem that needs solving here?How does the floppy disk icon fail?I'd argue that it's evidently untrue that symbols need to change every time the physical object they are based upon changes.Once a symbol enters a culture's visual language, it can convey meaning on its own, even after the physical object it ostensibly represents is obsoleted.There's nothing wrong with using the floppy.It mightn't be "clever", but it doesn't need to be.It just needs to get the job done.

Hey Connor, thanks for the message.I saw your blog post (nice read BTW) and I'm in the process of writing my own.Here are a few reasons why I think the Save icon is poorly designed and needs a new representation.1. Let's get the most obvious reason out of the way - the icon is a literal representation of an object that no longer exists and poorly symbolizes the act of saving in today's world.For those who do know what a floppy disk is, it misrepresents the concept of saving.2. You're right, it the icon has become an abstract symbol.But I disagree with the notion that a symbol doesn't need to have any meaning behind it to be well designed.The floppy disk icon literally has no deeper meaning.More...

3.The concept of save is evolving quickly and as the years go by, the icon makes less and less sense.In fact, I'd argue the icon is already on the way out - there are many examples of alternate icons using hard drives or clouds to represent "Save".4. It's not particularly easy on the eyes. The form is overly complex as it was intended to accurately represent the floppy disk (down to the label).These details become all the more silly in context to those who have never seen one.

I wonder if there's room for compromise; preserve only the recognizable "square with a notch taken out of it" shape of the floppy disk while getting rid of the silly clutter often included with it (disk guard, label, security hole, etc.).The space freed up by this drastic simplification could then be repurposed for communicating many of the needs (current and future) discussed in this thread.State of the data object currently being edited, state of synchronization between local/remote, affordance for accessing previous versions, etc.

I think part of the problem here is that the notion of saving is itself on the way out.Increasingly, the line between transient and permanent (as well as local and remote) storage is becoming blurred and users don’t necessarily want to have to tell the computer to ‘save’ their work all the time.In effect, the historical ‘Save’ action combines two separate and distinct functions:

1. Marking or ‘committing’ an iteration of some work as complete, and

2. Synchronising data with another file store, which may be local or remote; e.g. in the cloud.These two functions may require different user interfaces and visual representations that reflect the nature of each task.Only 1 requires deliberate user intervention, whereas 2 can be automatic.

In reply to Connor, I have seen people—and not just youngsters who have never seen a floppy disk before—genuinely puzzled over the meaning of the standard save icon.The notion of a physical storage medium has become so remote from their concept of saving a file that the current design has become confusing and outdated.However, and I’m sure this won’t be a popular view, I’m increasingly convinced that the best way to redesign the save symbol is to get rid of it altogether—or at least to replace it with a more meaningful notion, such as file versioning.

Is "saving" a part of the future of computing?I mean, you might be forking a document into a new one, or reverting to previous versions, but ideally everything should always be "saved".The only time the user would "save" a file is to select the path where that file should live, and at that point point the icon is not save, but choose place / choose path / choose "drawer" or "folder".

@Dane - I actually love that idea.I think the "square with a notch taken out of it" shape is distinctive, and I think it makes sense to use the existing floppy symbol as a base point instead of starting from scratch.Then we could use the interior space of the icon to mark the save state...that feels like a real evolution of the icon to me.@Keith - You say that many youngsters are puzzled by the meaning of the floppy, but I'd say that they'd be equally puzzled by many (any?) of the replacement symbols proposed here.@Edward - Yes, I think 'saving' is part of the future of computing.We can abstract it away in some cases, but the ability to explicitly commit changes is often important.

I wanted to try out an idea based on this last thread.This idea is based very heavily on Lyndsy's initial idea with a sprinkle of Aaron's thinking as well.

Forgive the shoddy rendering, I wanted to just quickly get the idea across.cl.ly

The basic concept is to symbolize encapsulation of an object.The "container" is obviously empty if the file is unsaved.The object can easily display different states (e.g., modified, saving, saved, etc.).

The symbol has the same basic profile as a floppy disk - although it more closely resembles the 5.5" floppy as opposed to the 3.5" version.I'm unsure if the vertical line is needed - it was intended to communicate that the object went "into" the container.I'm still iffy on that.

It's too complex… It's fun to play around, but if I show my my mom any of those symbols and offer her 500 guesses and $10million dollars at what they are she won't figure it out… We need something that can be guessed at…

If you showed your mom a magnifying glass icon and expected her to guess that it meant "search" 17 years ago, I bet she'd have the same problem.

Yes, there would be a learning curve, but it's not insurmountable.A new save icon would not exist in a vacuum - it would more often than not be accompanied by text.Context would have to be provided early on, but, like all new concepts, it could and would eventually be learned.

Can the ideas presented be clearer?Of course.Are we ever going to get to a version that's immediately recognizable as "save"?I doubt it.Is that a problem?I personally don't believe it is.

@PJ - Ah, I think this is where I fundamentally disagree (and also why I find this discussion important and fascinating).I have a real issue with the "authentically digital" design philosophy.I think it's meaningless.Human beings exist in the "real world", and so that's where our symbols, particularly the most resonant ones, come from.Take "The Cloud".In attempting to represent computing services delivered over the internet, we could have created an extremely abstract symbol to represent the movement of data.Instead, we've settled on a cute, fluffy cloud!I think you'll find that many people also love the floppy just because it's "cute".So maybe the emotional resonance of symbols is worth thinking about, too.

@PJ - I'd also just like to add: though I disagree with you about redesigning the save symbol, this conversation has been fascinating.Every symbol we use was once created, has a history, and could be improved.This conversation should be required reading for anybody creating *new* symbols to represent *new* abstractions.

@Connor - And you know, that's totally valid.It's definitely a sound philosophy and it may just come down to different design views.

To me, that's what makes this project fun to begin with.I have never resonated with "cute" in my work, but that obviously plays an important role in many design projects.It's funny that you use the Cloud icon as an example b/c I've recently come to the conclusion that I don't like it as an icon.I keep thinking of the humorous situation when someone wants to design a button that syncs their weather information to the cloud...

@Connor - I totally agree.At the *very least*, I hope it informs our future choices when we go about designing the next important icon.We can (and I believe we should) design in a way that communicates with *depth* and doesn't entirely rely on literal objects that are here today and potentially gone tomorrow.

Though I like the concept with the circle icons, I think its problematic because the circle in it self resembles a looping process and not a point in time.Further more It reminds me of the concept of a trash can icon (full / empty).

I think it is crucial to define the new/current/future concept of saving, before designing the icon for the action, as it has changed or is changing, as already mentioned in the discussion (at least in my opinion its safe to say that the act of "saving" is not the same anymore, though some might disagree).It will be impossible to design a useful icon before the process/meaning/concept of "saving" has been explicitly defined.At least as an over all concept....

1) Placing the item at a specific location in the file system is part of the saving process, and takes place the first time an item is saved.2) Edits of an item are not stored until the user hits save.(may be autosaved at an interval of fixed time points (e.g. once every hour) and only happens for safety reasons (for when the app crashes).3) When saving, the last saved item is replaced by the new item with the recent edits.4) No versioning.The only way to make a "version" is to manually duplicate the item in the file system (either by "save as" or copying/duplicating the file in the folder) and thus creating an entirely new item.5) Past saves of the item are lost and can't be retrieved.

@Jonas: I completely agree.Better to figure out what the concept of ‘Saving’ is being replaced with and then work backwards rather than design an icon for an already outmoded concept (hence my suggestions above re.committing a version and syncing).@Conor: Not just youngsters, though I’d agree that many of the alternatives would be similarly puzzling.I think that the fundamental problem here is that saving is a very abstract concept that doesn’t relate directly to any of the tasks the user wants to achieve.The trick is to make it relevant and user-centred.

1) Placing the item takes place either when creating the item or by a separate action in the app.The location of an item is not by default part of a traditional file system (e.g. a blog post or a wiki entry).2) An item will be autosaved every single time an edit has been made.(OR edits will not be autosaved at all, i.e. the user has to submit the edit before it is saved).3) A new (sub)version is created for every single edit (if autosaving is on).

4) When "saving" a (master)version will be called out.5) Retrieving every single past version is possible (differentiated in sub / master versions).

My view is that save generally serves one of a few functions — mark this point in time, commit this iteration, publish.I agree that by dwelling too much on what save IS, we are not looking at what save REPRESENTS.I am also conscious of avoiding a discussion about how the icon functions in a UI sense.This may be one of those design situations where it's very easy to over think it.My approach has been rooted in play and free thinking.I opted to explore the user intent — the user is thinking 'I am happy where this is at, commit it!'Attached is one proposal.I refer to the checkmark as saying 'yes'.By doubling up the checkmark the user is saying 'emphatically yes!', and hence committing their changes.imgur.com

@Jonas, I think you're heading in the right direction about how the concept of Save is shifting.We keep coming back to the idea of calling out a point in a file's timeline.To me, this invokes encapsulation, snapshotting, capturing, etc. I still think that's a strong direction to head.@Niels, I like the concept behind it, but man, the checkmark is a pretty loaded symbol. I wonder if there's another way we can communicate this idea.

One related issue I think that needs to be discussed is the nomenclature used for interactions.Think about terms and phrases like "log in/out", "e-mail", "post", etc. All of these are "skeuomorphic" terms as they each have roots in the physical, pre-digital worlds.Does it makes sense to start here, and devise new concepts and terminology to inform the visual design concepts for document/account management?

Now that I think about it, even "file" has a place in our physical world.The steep hill to climb is, again, that we have no frame of reference in a digital-born society for these concepts.I am starting to think more and more that the icons are a symptom, and the task is to create a new model for interacting with editable and user-created content.I'd love to hear others' opinions on this.

You're absolutely right, it's a very high hill to climb.In my opinion, some fights make sense (e.g., Save icon) where others may not.You're absolutely right that the icons we're discussing are simply an artifact of a larger issue.I guess this is a good problem to have sense a lot of those relatable metaphors helped make it easier for a digitally-illiterate public to be less intimidated with using a personal computer.That said, we're now dealing with some interesting ramifications of that decision.I don't think there's a good answer to this, but I think it's a fascinating discussion and I hope it continues to be discussed one way or another.

On that note, it seems like this would be a good point to close this conversation.Thoughts?